Abstract
This mainly theoretical article argues that the currently used hegemonic concepts in minority research — ethnicity, race, culture, religion and identity — fail to incorporate minority diversity, agency, structure, dynamics and contextual factors. This is supposedly due to the genesis of minority research and thus entails homogenization practices and static taxonomies. Additionally, the implied explanatory value of these essentializing concepts is questioned. Based on the societal reality of Flemish citizens with roots in Morocco and Turkey, it is argued that identification is a (new) more useful concept to describe and analyse a globalized society in which the ‘migrant population’ has become a very diverse and heterogenic population. The identification approach questions the presumption that a national, ‘cultural’, ‘ethnic’ or ‘religious’ identification is chosen as the primary identification. Strengths and limitations of the concept of identification are assessed, and three forms of identification (functional, normative and emotional) are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
